Method and System for Protecting Honey Bees, Bats and Butterflies From Neonicotinoid Pesticides

ABSTRACT

A method and system for the treatment of honey bees ( Apis mellifera ), bats, and butterflies protects them from various life threatening conditions, including Colony Collapse Disorder, white nose syndrome, etc. and in particular, provides honey bees, bats and butterflies with the ability to assimilate and degrade pesticides such as neonicotinoids and fipronil.

RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application is a continuation-in-part application of U.S. patentapplication Ser. No. 16/139,232, filed Sep. 24, 2018, which is acontinuation-in-part application of U.S. patent application Ser. No.15/379,579, filed Dec. 15, 2016 (now U.S. patent Ser. No. 10/086,024,issued Oct. 2, 2018), which claims priority from U.S. Provisional PatentApplication Ser. No. 62,277,568, filed on Jan. 12, 2016, from U.S.Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 62/277,571, filed on Jan. 12,2016 and U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 62/278,046, filedon Jan. 13, 2016.

This application also is a continuation-in-part of U.S. patentapplication Ser. No. 15/270,034, filed on Sep. 20, 2016 (now U.S. Pat.No. 9,750,802, issued Sep. 5, 2017, which is a continuation of U.S.patent application Ser. No. 14/954,074, filed on Nov. 30, 2015 (now U.S.Pat. No. 9,457,077, issued Oct. 4, 2016).

The entire disclosure of the prior applications are considered to bepart of the disclosure of the accompanying application and are herebyincorporated by reference.

FIELD OF THE INVENTION

The present invention relates to a method and system for the treatmentof honey bees (Apis mellifera), bats, and butterflies to protect themfrom various life threatening conditions, including Colony CollapseDisorder, white nose syndrome, etc. and in particular, is directed toproviding honey bees, bats and butterflies with the ability toassimilate and degrade neonicotinoids.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

Pollinating insects are key to the evolutionary and ecological successof flowering plants and enable much of the diversity in the human diet.Bees are arguably one of the most important beneficial insectsworldwide. Their positive impact can be measured by the value theycontribute to the agricultural economy, their ecological role inproviding pollination services, and the hive products they produce. Thehoney bee is credited with approximately 85% of the pollinating activitynecessary to supply about one-quarter to one-third of the nation's foodsupply. Over 50 major crops in the United States either depend on honeybees for pollination or produce more abundantly when honey bees areplentiful.

Approximately 90% of flowering plants—corresponding to nearly threequarters of global agricultural crops—use pollinators to set seed andfruit. Populations of several species of pollinators, however, are indecline throughout the world, threatening the stability of ourecosystems and productivity of our agricultural landscapes.

Bees are vital to global biodiversity and food security through theirpollination of plants, including several key crops. Honey bees, however,are exposed to myriad of stressors including pests, pathogens,pesticides, poor nutrition due to monocropping and habitat loss leadingto extreme colony losses.

In about 2006-2007, the discovery of the devastating effects of ColonyCollapse Disorder on US honey bee populations was first noticed.Overwhelming evidence now suggests that numerous wild and managed beepopulations are in decline. This has led to concerns over human foodsecurity and maintenance of biodiversity. Recent losses of honeybeecolonies have been linked to several non-exclusive factors; such aspests, parasites, pesticides (e.g., neonicotinoids) and other toxins. Inthe last 20 years, the bee-keeping sector registered very consistentlosses worldwide, in terms of bee numbers and productivity. Queen healthis crucial to colony survival of social bees. Recently, queen failurehas been proposed to be a major driver of managed honey bee colonylosses. The role of queens (primary reproductive females that canproduce diploid offspring) in social bee colony survival isindispensable. There have been anecdotal reports of ‘poor qualityqueens’ (i.e. queen failure) of the western honey bee (Apis mellifera;hereafter honey bee), throughout the northern hemisphere.

Common microbial pathogens appear to be major threats to honey bees,while sublethal doses of pesticide may enhance their deleterious effectson honey bee larvae and adults. Honey bees are suffering from elevatedcolony losses in the northern hemisphere possibly because of a varietyof emergent microbial pathogens, with which pesticides may interact toexacerbate their impacts.

More than six decades after the onset of wide-scale commercial use ofsynthetic pesticides and more than fifty years after Rachel Carson'sSilent Spring, pesticides, particularly insecticides, arguably remainthe most influential pest management tool around the globe.Nevertheless, pesticide use is still a controversial issue and is at theregulatory forefront in most countries. Neonicotinoids are suspected topose an unacceptable risk to bees, partly because of their systemicuptake in plants. The European Union has therefore introduced amoratorium on three neonicotinoids as seed coatings in flowering cropsthat attract bees. The neonicotinoid class of chemical pesticides hasrecently received considerable attention because of potential risks itposes to ecosystem functioning and services. Ubiquitously used formanagement of harmful insects in the last decade, these systemicchemicals persist in the environment, thereby promoting their contactwith non-target organisms such as pollinating bees.

Sub-lethal doses of neonicotinoids have been shown to negatively impactthe health of honeybees. Understanding the effects of neonicotinoidinsecticides on bees is vital because of reported declines in beediversity and distribution and the crucial role bees have as pollinatorsin ecosystems and agriculture. Pollinators perform sophisticatedbehaviors' while foraging that require them to learn and remember floraltraits associated with food. Neonicotinoid pesticides, at levels shownto occur in the wild, interfere with the learning circuits in the bee'sbrain. Pesticides have a direct impact on pollinator brain physiology.Disruption in this important function has profound implications forhoneybee colony survival, because bees that cannot learn will not beable to find food. Both honey bees and bumble bees prefer sugarsolutions laced with the neonicotinoids imidacloprid, clothianidin, andthiamethoxam over pure sugar water, presumably due to the nicotine-likeaddition that is so common in humans.

On Apr. 2, 2015, the EPA announced that it will not be approving newoutdoor uses of neonicotinoids until pollinator risk assessments arecomplete. Tests include acute and chronic toxicity tests for adults andlarvae, field feeding studies, foliage toxicity, residues in pollen andnectar, and realistic field experiments that look at long term effects.

Canola is becoming a favored crop in the prairies, with over a millionacres (1700 square miles) to be planted in North Dakota alone this year.Bayer CropScience grows hybrid canola seed in Canada, and in an ironictwist, is thereby the largest renter of honey bee pollination servicesin Canada, and is thus highly motivated to ensure that the product doesnot harm bees. Virtually all canola seed is treated with clothianidin orits precursor, thiamethoxam.

There is therefore a long felt but unsolved need for a system and methodto protect honey bees from the increasing use of neonicotinoidinsecticides which are believed to be at least partially responsible forthe recent demise of honey bee populations.

The corpses of hibernating bats were first found blanketing caves in thenortheastern United States in 2006. The disease that killed them, causedby a cold-loving fungus called Geomyces destructans—and dubbedWhite-nose Syndrome (WNS) for the tell-tale white fuzz it leaves onbats' ears and noses—has since destroyed at least one million Bats,becoming one of the most precipitous wildlife decline in the pastcentury in North America. WNS is a fungal disease that has its greatestimpacts during bat hibernation and emergence. Bats in torpor experiencereduced immune function, thus potentially compromising their ability tocombat WNS. Fat reserves are metabolized during hibernation, a processthat can mobilize contaminants to the brain and other tissues coincidentwith reduced immune function. CECs, such as PBDEs, bisphenol A, andtriclosan, may further diminish immune competence.

Bats are especially vulnerable to chemical pollution. They're small—thelittle brown bat weighs just 8 grams—and can live for up to threedecades. For their body size, bats live longer than any other order ofmammal. Bats may be more susceptible than other mammals to the effectsof low doses of bioaccumulative contaminants due to their annual lifecycles, requiring significant fat deposition followed by extreme fatdepletion during hibernation or migration, at which time contaminantsmay be mobilized into the brain and other tissues.

There is a growing body of science directly implicating neonicotinoid(neonic) pesticides in the significant decline of bees and otherpollinators, including bats. Pollinator decline has been found on everycontinent in the world, and hundreds of pollinator species are on theverge of extinction. Since 2006, bees in the U.S. have been dying off orseemingly abandoning their hives—a phenomenon known as Colony CollapseDisorder. While there are many contributors to pollinator decline, twoof the most important are the loss of habitat and the introduction andexpansion of use of new pesticides on agricultural cropland. A specificconcern centers on neonicotinoids, a relatively new class of systemicinsecticides, often applied as a seed coating in commodity agriculture.

Neonicotinoids came into wide use in the early 2000s. Unlike olderpesticides that evaporate or disperse shortly after application,neonicotinoids are systemic poisons. Applied to the soil or doused onseeds, neonicotinoid insecticides incorporate themselves into planttissues, turning the plant itself into a tiny poison factory emittingtoxin from its roots, leaves, stems, pollen, and nectar. As the namesuggest, neonicotinoids are similar in structure to nicotine andparalyze or disorient insects by blocking a pathway that transmits nerveimpulses in the insect's central nervous system.

Neonicotinoids are used to control a wide variety of insects. The firstneonicotinoid, imidacloprid (Admire), became available in the UnitedStates in 1994 and is currently present in over 400 products on themarket. Other neonic insecticides include acetamiprid, clothianidin,dinotefuran, nitenpyram, thiacloprid, and thiamethoxam. In 2006,neonicotinoids accounted for over 17 percent of the global insecticidemarket. Two of them—clothianidin and thiamethoxam—dominate the globalmarket for insecticidal seed treatments and are used to coat the seedsof most of the annual crops planted around the world. In fact, more than94 percent of the corn and more than 30 percent of the soy planted inthe United States is pretreated with neonicotinoids.

The introduction of neonicotinoids into the agricultural marketplaceoccurred around the same time as the introduction of GMO crops in themid-to-late 1990s. Monsanto and Syngenta, the undisputed leaders inpatented genetically engineered seeds, also have close relationshipswith the leading global neonic producer, Bayer. Most new commodity cropsare increasingly coming to farmers with stacked traits, which means morethan one transgenic alteration. These genetically engineered andtransplanted traits are marketed to farmers as providing benefits suchas resistance to multiple herbicides, pests, funguses, heat and drought.

Seed treatment applications are prophylactic, meaning they are usedwhether or not there is any evidence of pest pressures. At least 30percent of soybean seeds planted annually (approximately 22.5 millionout of 75 million acres) are pretreated with neonic insecticides (two ofthe primary four being imidacloprid and thiamethoxam). But corn has thehighest use and acreage with around 94 percent of U.S. corn treated witha neonicotinoid. That widespread use has quickly elevated the Midwest tothe highest levels of neonicotinoid use in the country. Theseneonicotinoids don't stay in the plants and soil however, but find theirways into the water as well. A recent U.S. Geological Survey reportconfirmed that neonicotinoids were common in streams throughout theMidwest. Bats frequently forage in aquatic and terrestrial habitats thatmay be subjected to discharges from wastewater treatment plants,agricultural operations, and other point and nonpoint sources ofcontaminants.

Death is not the only outcome of pesticide exposure. Sub-lethal doses ofneonicotinoids can disrupt pollinators' cognitive abilities,communication and physiology. Neonicotinoids also have harmfulsynergistic impacts on pollinators in combination with other chemicalsin the field, compounding their effects. Scientists have shown inmultiple studies that the combined presence of neonicotinoids and somefungicides can increase the potency of neonicotinoids by more than1,000-fold. In addition to their toxicity, neonicotinoids persist inplants much longer than most other insecticides, thereby compoundingtheir impact on pollinators. They can reside in plant tissues for over ayear, and some can persist for even longer in the soil. This meanspollinators and other animals are exposed to the chemicals for extendedperiods of time and in some regions year-round.

There is a desperate need for an effective treatment to advert thedestruction of bat species that has been observed over the last decade.The ramifications of the elimination of such an important pollinator,such as the bat, will have tremendous and as yet unforeseen negativeeffects on the environment. A need for a treatment is therefore longfelt and unsolved. The present invention is directed to a method andsystem that achieves this objective.

The annual migration of North America's monarch butterfly (Danausplexippus Kluk (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae) is a unique and amazingphenomenon. The monarch is the only butterfly known to make a two-waymigration as birds do. Unlike other butterflies that can overwinter aslarvae, pupae, or even as adults in some species, monarchs cannotsurvive the cold winters of northern climates. Using environmental cues,the monarchs know when it is time to travel south for the winter.Monarchs use a combination of air currents and thermals to travel longdistances. Some fly as far as 3,000 miles to reach their winter home.The multigenerational migration of North American monarch butterfliesbetween breeding grounds in the northern U.S. and southern Canada andwintering grounds in central Mexico and coastal California is one of theworld's most spectacular natural events. The interest in monarchs andtheir fascinating, visible biology is demonstrated by monarchbutterflies being the official insect or butterfly of seven U.S. states;celebrated via festivals in Mexico, the United States, and Canada; thefocus of science curricula; and the subject of multiple citizen-scienceprojects.

Monarch butterfly populations have declined precipitously in NorthAmerica in the last twenty years. This decline has commonly been linkedto loss of milkweeds (Asclepias species) from farmer's fields. Monarchcaterpillars are dependent on milkweeds. The ability of farmers to killthem with the Monsanto herbicide Roundup (glyphosate) has therefore ledto this herbicide being considered as a major contributor to the declineof the monarch butterfly. Adult monarch butterflies feed on nectar thatprovides sugars and other nutrients. Monarch butterflies migrate toMexican forests for overwintering. Overwintering monarchs reduce theirmetabolism and limit their feeding.

The introduction of neonicotinoids into the agricultural marketplaceoccurred around the same time as the introduction of GMO crops in themid-to-late 1990s. Monsanto and Syngenta, the undisputed leaders inpatented genetically engineered seeds, also have close relationshipswith the leading global neonic producer, Bayer. Most new commodity cropsare increasingly coming to farmers with stacked traits, which means morethan one transgenic alteration. These genetically engineered andtransplanted traits are marketed to farmers as providing benefits suchas resistance to multiple herbicides, pests, funguses, heat and drought.

Seed treatment applications are prophylactic, meaning they are usedwhether or not there is any evidence of pest pressures. At least 30percent of soybean seeds planted annually (approximately 22.5 millionout of 75 million acres) are pretreated with neonic insecticides (two ofthe primary four being imidacloprid and thiamethoxam). But corn has thehighest use and acreage with around 94 percent of U.S. corn treated witha neonicotinoid. That widespread use has quickly elevated the Midwest tothe highest levels of neonicotinoid use in the country. Theseneonicotinoids don't stay in the plants and soil however, but find theirways into the water as well. A recent U.S. Geological Survey reportconfirmed that neonicotinoids were common in streams throughout theMidwest.

In 1999, common milkweed, the monarch's food plant, was found in half ofcorn and soybean fields, but in only 8% of them a decade later.Glyphosatetolerant GM crops are grown in the same fields each year. Onceabsorbed, glyphosate is translocated to the roots and therefore themilkweed does not regenerate. It has been shown that clothianidin, avery long-acting systemic neonicotinoid insecticide, has contributed tothe decline of monarch butterflies. USDA researchers have identified theneonicotinoid insecticide clothianidin as a likely contributor tomonarch butterfly declines in North America. Neonicotinoids have beenstrongly implicated in pollinator declines worldwide. As shown by areport from a task force of the International Union of NatureConservation based in Switzerland, neonicotinoids, such as clothianidin(Bayer), are a particular hazard because, unlike most pesticides, theyare soluble molecules. From soil or seed treatments they can reachnectar and are found in pollen.

USDA researchers have shown that clothianidin can have effects onmonarch caterpillars at doses as low as 1 part per billion. The effectsseen in experiments were on caterpillar size, caterpillar weight, andcaterpillar survival. The lethal dose (LC50) they found to be 15 partsper billion. The caterpillars in their experiments were exposed toclothianidin-treated food for only 36 hrs, however. The researcherstherefore noted that in agricultural environments caterpillar exposurewould likely be greater than in their experiments. Furthermore, thatbutterfly caterpillars would be exposed in nature to other pesticides,including other neonicotinoids. In sampling experiments fromagricultural areas in South Dakota the researchers found that milkweedshad on average over 1 ppb clothianidin. On this basis the USDAresearchers concluded that “neonicotinoids could negatively affectlarval monarch populations.” Neonicotinoids are now the most widely usedpesticides in the world.

Neonicotinoids are neurotoxins that are partially banned in the EU.There has been negligible research on the effects of neonicotinoids onbutterflies. There is a desperate need for an effective treatment toadvert the destruction of monarch butterflies that has been observedover the last decade. The ramifications of the elimination of themonarch butterfly will have tremendous and as yet unforeseen negativeeffects on the environment. A need for a treatment is therefore longfelt and unsolved. The present invention is directed to a method andsystem that achieves this objective.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

Certain aspects of the present invention are directed to employing genesfrom the microbe ochrobactrum intermedium such that honey bees are ableto assimilate and degrade neonicotinoids. Other embodiments employinnoculaton of honey bees with a culture of neonicotinoid degradingbacteria, such as one or more of ochrobactrum intermedium, Agrobacteriumtumefaciens S33, Apergillus oryzae, Pseudomonas putida S16; Arthrobacternicotinovarans, microsporum gypseum, pellicularia filamentosa JTS-208,pseudomonas sp. 41; Microsporum gypseum; Pseudomonas ZUTSKD; aspergillusoryzae 112822; and ochrobactrum intermedium DN2. Preferably wherein thebacteria collection or culture comprises ochrobactrum intermedium,collection number CGMCC NO. 8839. The invention further providesapplications of the ochrobactrum intermedium to foster degradation ofneonicotinoid insecticides by the honey bee while the microbe exists inthe gut of the honey bee.

Honey bees host a multitude of species of microbes that positivelyimpact bee health. The guts of honey bee workers contain a distinctivecommunity of bacterial species. They are microaerophilic or anaerobic.These species include both Gram negative groups, such as Gilliamellaapicola and Snodgrassella alvi, and Gram positive groups such as certainLactobacillus and Bifidobacterium species. These gut bacterial speciesappear to have undergone long term coevolution with honey bee and, insome cases, bumble bee hosts. Prediction of gene functions from genomesequences suggests roles in nutrition, digestion, and potentially indefense against pathogens. In particular, genes for sugar utilizationand carbohydrate breakdown are enriched in G. apicola and theLactobacillus species.

CRISPR (Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats) is aprokaryotic adaptive defense system that provides resistance againstalien replicons such as viruses and plasmids. CRISPRs evolved inbacteria as an adaptive immune system to defend against viral attack.Upon exposure to a virus, short segments of viral DNA are integratedinto the CRISPR locus. RNA is transcribed from a portion of the CRISPRlocus that includes the viral sequence. That RNA, which containssequence complimentary to the viral genome, mediates targeting of a Cas9protein to a target sequence in the viral genome. The Cas9 proteincleaves and thereby silences the viral target. In preferred embodiments,rather than using CRISPR-Cas, one employs the CRISPR-associatedendonuclease Cpf1. e.g. a CRISPR from Prevotella and Francisella 1(Cpf1) nuclease for CRISPR-based genome editing (and incorporating20150252358 to Maeder by this reference).

CRISPR has a certain protein in it called Cas9 that acts like a scissoras it recognizes specific sequences of DNA and cuts it enabling one toperform genome-editing of a bacterial genome in a person's microbiome.There exists another CRISPR system, CRISPR-Cpf1 that is even morepreferred for use in microbial systems. Cpf1 is important in bacterialimmunity and is well adapted to slice target DNAs. Cpf1 prefers a “TTN”PAM motif that is located 5′ to its protospacer target—not 3′, as perCas9, making it distinct in having a PAM that is not G-rich and is onthe opposite side of the protospacer. Cpf1 binds a crRNA that carriesthe protospacer sequence for base-pairing the target. Unlike Cas9, Cpf1does not require a separate tracrRNA and is devoid of a tracrRNA gene atthe Cpf1-CRISPR locus, which means that Cpf1 merely requires a cRNA thatis about 43 bases long—of which 24 nt is protospacer and 19 nt is theconstitutive direct repeat sequence. In contrast, the single RNA thatCas9 needs is still about. 100 nt long. Cpf1 is apparently directlyresponsible for cleaving the 43-base cRNAs apart from the primarytranscript.

With respect to the cleavage sites on the target DNA, the cut sites arestaggered by about 5 bases, thus creating “sticky overhangs” tofacilitate gene editing via NHEJ-mediated-ligation of DNA fragments withmatching ends. The cut sites are in the 3′ end of the protospacer,distal to the 5′ end where the PAM is. The cut positions usually followthe 18th base on the protospacer strand and the 23rd base on thecomplementary strand (the one that pairs to the crRNA). In Cpf1 there isa “seed” region close to the PAM in which single base substitutionscompletely prevent cleavage activity. Unlike the Cas9 CRISPR target, thecleavage sites and the seed region do not overlap. One advantage of thepresent invention, as compared to techniques that rely on CRISPR systemsto modify mammalian cells, is that the system and method of preferredembodiments are directed to bacterial systems—rather than eukaryoticsystems. It is believed that Cpf1 may be better than Cas9 for mediatinginsertions of DNA, namely because its guide RNA is only 43 bases long,making it feasible to purchase directly synthesized guide RNAs for Cpf1,with or without chemical modifications to enhance stability.

CRISPR systems may be employed to insert desired genes into the abovementioned (as well as others) microbes that inhabit the honey bee gut soas to degrade particular insecticides, including neonicotinoids. The beemicrobiome enhances host functions, contributing to host health andfitness. One aspect of the present invention is directed to improvinghoney bee fitness by modifying the honey bee microbiome, thusengineering evolved microbiomes with specific effects on the host honeybee fitness. Thus, by employing host-mediated microbiome selection, oneis able to select and modify microbial communities indirectly throughthe host, thus influencing the honey bee microbiome and positivelyaffecting honey bee fitness. The methods that may be used to imposeartificial selection on the honey bee microbiome include varioustechniques known to those of skill in the art, including CRISPR-Cas andCpf1 systems. Thus, while particular cultures of particular microbes canbe purposefully included into bee populations so as to inhabit their gutmicrobiome, and by doing so, providing the honey bees with the abilityto degrade neonicotinoids, other embodiments are directed to engineeringa modification of the honey bee gut microbes that do not already possesssuch neonicotinoid degradation genes.

Detoxification gene inventory reduction may reflect an evolutionaryhistory of consuming relatively chemically benign nectar and pollen.Relative to most other insect genomes, the western honey bee Apismellifera has a deficit of detoxification genes. Thus, certainembodiments are directed to the development of predictablemicrobiome-based biocontrol strategies by providing the ability ofinsects such as the honey bee, to degrade or otherwise assimilateinsecticides or other chemical agents, including neonicotinoids. Such anovel biocontrol strategy can not only be used to suppress pathogens butcan also be effectively used to establish microbiomes in a desirablebeneficial composition for particular purposes.

In certain embodiments, xenobiotic detoxification is employed to addressthe problems associated with the honey bee Colony Collapse Disorder. Inparticular embodiments, the conversion of lipid-soluble substances towater-soluble, excretable metabolites is achieved. In a primarydetoxification step, a toxin structure is enzymatically altered andrendered unable to interact with lipophilic target sites. Suchfunctionalization is effected primarily by cytochrome P450monooxygenases (P450) and carboxylesterases (CCE), although otherenzymes, including flavin-dependent monooxygenases and cyclooxygenasesmay also be employed. Further reactions typically involve conjugation ofproducts of the above referenced step to achieve detoxification forsolubilization and transport. Glutathione-S-transferases (GST) are theprincipal enzymes used, although other enzymes in insects may includeglycosyltransferases, phosphotransferases, sulfotransferases, aminotransferases, and glycosidases. Nucleophilic compounds can berendered hydrophilic by UDP-glycosyltransferases. The final stage ofdetoxification involves transport of conjugates out of cells forexcretion. Among the proteins involved in this process are multidrugresistance proteins and other ATP-binding cassette transporters.

In the gut of the honey bee, a distinctive microbial community has beenidentified that is composed of a taxonomically restricted set of speciesspecific to social bees. Despite the ecological and economicalimportance of honey bees and the increasing concern about populationdeclines, the role of their gut symbionts for colony health andnutrition is largely unknown.

Long-term antibiotic treatment has caused the bee gut microbiota toaccumulate resistance genes, drawn from a widespread pool of highlymobile loci characterized from pathogens and agricultural sites. 50years of using antibiotics in beekeeping in the United States hasresulted in extensive tetracycline resistance in the gut microbiota.Since the 1950s, the antibiotic oxytetracycline has been widely appliedto colonies of bees in the United States to control larval foulbrooddiseases caused by the bacteria Melissococcus pluton and Paenibacilluslarvae; oxytetracycline was the only antibiotic approved for use inbeekeeping until 2005.

When antibiotics are used for controlling infections by pathogens, theyalso impact other microbes, including the beneficial bacteria present inhealthy hosts. The selective force imposed by an antibiotic can causethe accumulation of resistance determinants, which are often encoded onmobile genetic elements that are readily transferred among communitymembers. The impact of antibiotics on the gut microbiota of honey beesis a particular concern, since gut communities may act as reservoirs forresistance genes that can be transferred to pathogens and also sinceperturbation of gut microbiota by antibiotic treatments could disruptfunctions beneficial to the honey bee, butterflies and bats. Thus, incertain aspects of the present invention, restoring antibioticresistance is one objective and this can be achieved via CRISPR-Casmodifications.

Compared to the gut microbiota of humans and other mammals, the honeybeegut microbiota provides a distinctive and relatively simple bacterialcommunity. The honeybee has eight characteristic bacterial species thattogether comprise over 95% of the gut bacteria in adult worker bees. Theeight bacterial species known to dominate the honeybee gut microbiota,primarily the Gram-negative members of this community are referred tovia previous designations: “Alpha1” and “Alpha2” from theAlphaproteobacteria, Snodgrassella alvi from the Betaproteobacteria,Gilliamella apicola and “Gamma2” from the Gammaproteobacteria, “Firm4”and “Firm5” from the Firm icutes, and “Bifido” from theBifidobacteriaceae. Any one or more of these bacteria can be modified toexpress particular genes that have been shown (for example by itsinclusion in the bacteria ochrobactrum intermedium, to degradeneonicotinoids in a manner that preserves honey bee health.

The following references are incorporated by reference in theirentireties to provide requisite written description and enablement forvarious embodiments of the various embodiments of the present invention.Certain embodiments of the present invention involve the use ofCRISPR-Cas or Cpf1 or other related systems to modify the microbiomes ofthe insects and animals as described herein, including specificallyhoneybees, such that the insects/animals can assimilate (e.g. bydegradation) particular pesticides that would otherwise cause them harmor damage.

Neonicotinoids are a class of insecticides, which includes imidacloprid,acetamiprid, thiacloprid, dinotefuran, nitenpyram, thiamethoxam, andclothianidin, and have a high target specificity to insects (Ensley,2012c). The neonicotinoids act on postsynaptic nicotinic acetylcholinereceptors (nAChRs). In insects, these receptors are located entirely inthe CNS.

It is well recognized that nicotine is a highly toxic alkaloid primarilyfound in the plant family Solanaceae, including tomato, potato, greenpepper and tobacco. It is a broadly effective defense againstherbivores, with a mode of action resembling that of syntheticneonicotinoids; and has been used as a non-synthetic insecticide in theform of tobacco tea in organic farming methods (Isman et al., 2006).Nicotine mimics acetylcholine at the neuromuscular junction in mammals,causing twitching, convulsions and even death (Steppuhn et al., 2004;Tom izawa et al., 2003). In susceptible insects, the same mode of actionis observed in the ganglia of the central nervous system. One of skillin the art, with the guidance provided herein, including the referencesincorporated herein by reference, can apply various transgenictechnologies of molecular biology, genetics and otherdisciplines—including CRISPR-Cas and Cpf1 systems, to modify microbes,especially gut microbes resident in particular insect or animals, toprovide the ability to degrade nicotinoids before they adversely affectthe insects/animals.

The gene editing technology known as Clustered Regularly InterspacedShort Palindromic Repeats (CRISPR) and the CRISPR-associated protein 9(Cas9), referred to as: (CRISPR/Cas9), has demonstrated exponentialacceptance in the scientific community and is applied across a widevariety of genetic applications. While RNAi technology can suppresstranscripts of gene expression, the CRISPR/Cas9 system can performprecision insertions and deletions in the eukaryotic genome that areinheritable. As described herein, these two technologies (RNAi andCRISPR/Cas9) provide unique advantages for addressing how to amelioratepathogens.

CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing is a powerful tool to modify bacterial genomesand can be applied to genetically alter host-associated bacteria. Use ofa CRISPR system may be employed to delete outer membrane proteins, aswell as employed to achieve the deletion of other proteins to impair theability to form biofilms. Moreover, integration of genes into thebacterial genome can be exploited to develop control strategies.CRISPR/Cas9 and Cpf1 system technology can be employed for geneticmanipulation of gut microbes.

As one of skill in the art appreciates, the CRISPR/Cpf1 system employsthe smaller Cpf1 enzyme. Cpf1 is a smaller and simpler endonuclease thanCas9, overcoming some of the CRISPR/Cas9 system limitations. Theseadvantages allow it to more efficiently edit the genomes of differentorganisms, See, e.g. Zetsche et. al, 2015). The G. apicola microbe ofthe honeybee gut, for example, includes CRISPR elements, making itsuitable and available for modification employing the CRISPR systemsdescribed herein, especially in view of the knowledge of one of skill inthe art with respect to the genomics of the honeybee gut microbes, seee.g. Kwong, et. al, PNAS (2014), describing the abundance in G. apicolagenomes of CRISPR elements.

In accordance with various embodiments of the present invention,multiple species of Proteobacteria that are native to the gutmicrobiomes of honey bees (Apis mellifera) and bumble bees (Bombus sp.)can be modified to achieve desired expression of proteins. Expressingfluorescent proteins in Snodgrassella alvi, Gilliamella apicola,Bartonella apis, and Serratia strains enables one to visualize how thesebacteria colonize the bee gut and permits one to demonstrate CRISPRirepression in B. apis and to use Cas9-facilitated knockout of an S. alviadhesion gene to show that it is important for colonization of the gut.The gut microbiome influences the health of bees and one of skill in theart, employing available bee microbiome toolkits, can effectivelyengineer bacteria found in other natural microbial communities. US Pat.Publication Nos. 20180177160 to Wagoner, et. al.; 20180208977 to Doudna,et. al.; and 20180163265 to Zhang, et. al, are incorporated herein bythis reference.

One of skill in the art will appreciate the employment ofNicotine-Degrading Gene Clusters and the use of CRISPR systems to insertthe same into different species of microbes typically resident in thegut of bees, bats and/or butterflies. The references below are allincorporated herein by this reference to provide written description andenablement for the various embodiments of the present invention. Forexample, others have generated the complete genome sequence of thenicotine-degrading bacterium Shinella sp. Previous studies showed that anovel 6-hydroxy-nicotine oxidase, NctB, was responsible for thedegradation of 6-hydroxy-nicotine to 6-hydroxypseudooxynicotine (Qiu etal., 2014). The nctB gene (locus tag shn_30305) was found on the plasmidpShin-05. The nctB gene, as well as genes homologous to vppA (nicotinehydroxylase gene), vppE (2,5-dihydroxypyridine dioxygenase gene) fromOchrobactrum sp. strain SJY1 (Yu et al., 2015) and pno(6-hydroxypseudooxynicotine oxidase gene) from Agrobacterium tumefaciensS33 (Li et al., 2016), appeared in an 50 kb region of DNA with a GCcontent of 56.6%. Similarly, Wang et al. (2013) described theacetamiprid degradation kinetics using the Ochrobactrum sp. bacterialstrain, which is capable of degrading acetamiprid from 0 to 3000 mg L-1within 48 h. See also, Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC Adv., 2017, 7,25387). Bacterial species belonging to Ochrobactrum genus areopportunistic pathogens due to insertion and deletion of genes. TheOchrobactrum intermedium genome sequence was documented in 2009. Stillother researchers, e.g. Shi-Lei Sun, et al., have written about thebiodegradation of the neonicotinoid insecticide acetamiprid by thebacterium Variovorax boronicumulans CGMCC 4969 and its enzymaticmechanism. The metabolism of thiamethoxam, a neonicotinoid pesticide,has been described by Coulon, et. al, (2017) such that one of skill inthe art would appreciate that such a nitro-substituted neonicotinoid canbe degraded. The metabolism of the widely used neonicotinoid insecticideacetamiprid (ACE) can be degraded via the employment of the SCL3-10nitrile hydratase beta subunit gene, see, e.g. Imidacloprid is degradedby CYP353D1v2, a cytochrome P450. wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ps.4570/full(2017). Parte, et al., reviews the microbial degradation of pesticidesin the African Journal of Microbiology Research (2017). Madhuban et al.(2011) describes the degradation of imidacloprid and metribuzin; Singh DK (2008) describes the biodegradation and bioremediation of pesticidesin the Indian J. Microbiol. 48:35-40; Madhuban G, et. al. (2011)describe the biodegradation of imidacloprid and metribuzin byBurkholderia cepacia strain CH9 in Pestic. Res. J. 23(1):36-40; Hegde,et. al. “CRISPR/Cas9-mediated gene deletion of the ompA gene in anEnterobacter gut symbiont impairs biofilm formation and reduces gutcolonization of Aedes aegypti mosquitoes,” bioRxiv, (2018);Sinisterra-Hunter, et. al, “Towards a Holistic Integrated PestManagement Lessons Learned from Plant-Insect Mechanisms in the Field”;Ruan et al. “Isolation and characterization of a novel nicotinophilicbacterium, Arthrobacter sp. aRF-1 and its metabolic pathway,”Biotechnology and Applied Biochemistry (2018); US Patent publication No.20180119132 to Hutchison, III et. al., Leonard, et. al., GeneticEngineering of Bee Gut Microbiome Bacteria with a Toolkit for ModularAssembly of Broad-Host-Range Plasmids, ACS Synth. Biol., (2018).

The mechanism of degradation and regulation of nicotinoid degradingenzyme genes has been clarified at the DNA level, and degradation geneshave been cloned and microorganisms prepared, resulting inidentification and study of degradation plasmids and pesticidepollution-degrading enzymes, such that such the gene pool, coupled withthe use of modern genetic engineering, permits one of skill in the artto build more efficient degradation engineered bacteria. US patentpublication No. 20170035820 to Stamets et al., employing integrativefungal solutions for protecting bees and overcoming colony collapsedisorder (CCD); Probeeotics UBC Igem (2015); Critical Reviews inBiotechnology, where pesticide degraders were unraveled via stableisotope probing; US patent publication No. 20180216123 to Anand, et.al., who explore OCHROBACTRUM-MEDIATED TRANSFORMATIONs of cells,including the nuclease-mediated genome modification with Ochrobactrum tomake genome modifications mediated by CRISPR-Cas nucleases, furtherdescribed in WO 2013/141680, US 2014/0068797, and WO 2015/026883, eachof which is incorporated herein by reference in their entireties,including techniques for the transformation of Ochrobactrum by employingCRISPR-Cas9 Nuclease and Endonuclease-Mediated Genome ModificationsUsing Transfer Cassettes and/or Helper Plasmids, thus improvingCRISPR-Cas9 genome editing. Transfer cassettes including, but notlimited to RepABC, pRi, pVS1, RK2 can be used to modulate the amount ofDNA molecules delivered to cells used in CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing.PCT/US2016/049135 is also incorporated herein by reference with respectto nicotinoid degrading genes. Numerous genes (both host and symbiont)and the proteins they encode identified herein as being associated withnicotinoid-pathogen synergy, such as those described in US patentpublication no. 20180020678, incorporated herein by this reference, aresubject to being regulated by the use of CRISPR-systems, such that thenicotinoid degradation can proceed to render the hosts (honey bees,bats, butterflies, etc.) less susceptible to nicotinoids. See also, TheBiological Degradation of Nicotine by Nicotinophilic MicroorganismsBeitrage zur Tabakforschung International-Contributions to TobaccoResearch.html (January 2015); Sarfraz Hussain, et. al., “Bacterialbiodegradation of neonicotinoid pesticides in soil and water systems,”FEMS Microbiology Letters, Volume 363, Issue 23, (2016).

The important enzymes involved in degrading neonicotinoid insecticidesinclude those in the P450 superfamily, with one of skill in the art ableto select which of the P450 clades is the right candidate for geneticengineering of particular microbes to affect the degradation of aparticular pesticide in a particular insect or animal. Several pesticidedegrading genes are known, including pyrethroid-hydrolyzing genes fromKlebsiella sp. ZD112, Sphingobium sp. JZ-1 and metagenome. Thepyrethroid-degrading strain Ochrobactrum anthropi YZ-1 and theexpression of the gene pytZ which encodes a pyrethroid-hydrolyzingcarboxylesterase can be employed as the purified enzyme has been studiedfor its substrate specificity, stability, optimal temperature and pH.

Incorporated by reference in their entireties are the following: Zhai,et. al. Molecular cloning, purification and biochemical characterizationof a novel pyrethroid-hydrolyzing carboxylesterase gene fromOchrobactrum anthropi YZ-1, Journal of Hazardous Materials, June 2012,Pages 206-212; P. C. Wu, et. al., Molecular cloning, purification, andbiochemical characterization of a novel pyrethroid-hydrolyzing esterasefrom Klebsiella sp. strain ZD112, J. Agric. Food Chem., 54 (2006), pp.836-842; B. Z. Wang, et. al., Cloning of a novel pyrethroid-hydrolyzingcarboxylesterase gene from Sphingobium sp. JZ-1 and characterization ofthe gene product, Appl. Environ. Microbiol., 75 (2009), pp. 5496-5500;G. Li, et al., Molecular cloning and characterization of a novelpyrethroid-hydrolyzing esterase originating from the metagenome, Microb.Cell Factories, 7 (2008); S Chen et al. Pathway and kinetics ofcyhalothrin biodegradation by Bacillus thuringiensis strain ZS-19,Scientific reports, 2015—nature.com; A S Pankaj, et. al., Novel pathwayof cypermethrin biodegradation in a Bacillus sp. strain SG2 isolatedfrom cypermethrin-contaminated agriculture field; 3 Biotech,2016—ncbi.nlm.nih.gov; H Itoh, et. al., Detoxifying symbiosis:microbe-mediated detoxification of phytotoxins and pesticides ininsects, Natural product reports, 2018—pubs.rsc.org; T Gong, et. al., Anengineered Pseudomonas putida can simultaneously degradeorganophosphates, pyrethroids and carbamates, Science of The Total . . ., 2018—Elsevier.

Another aspect of the present invention is directed to addressing how wecan stem the tide of bat decline by modifying the gut microbiota of batsso as to enable the bats to degrade various materials, includingneonicotinoids, thus providing a method and system to assist in thesurvival and reproduction of bats. Both skin and gut microbiomes areinvolved in certain embodiments of the present invention. In certainembodiments, a treatment to prevent or at least reduce the occurrenceand ramifications from White-nose syndrome, caused by the fungal skinpathogen Pseudogymnoascus destructans, is set forth, such treatmentholding promise to avert the threat that several hibernating bat speciesmay go extinct and offering one of the only effective treatmentstrategies for such condition. The skin microbiome of the bat isbelieved to play an important role in an effective treatment for WNS. Incertain embodiments, bacteria of the genus Pseudomonas are employed toadversely affect the growth of the P. destructans. While in certainembodiments, bacteria found naturally occurring on bats are employed toinhibit the growth of P. destructans, in other embodiments, modifiedbacteria, preferably via the use of a CRISPR-Cas or Cpf1 system, isemployed to enhance the growth of particular bacteria on the skin ofbats, so as to counter the effects of WNS, notably by inhibiting thegrowth of P. destructans. These modified bacteria are thus employed as askin probiotic to protect bats from white-nose syndrome.

Yet another aspect of the present invention is directed to addressinghow to stem the tide of butterfly decline, and in particular Monarchbutterfly declines, by modifying the gut microbiota of monarchbutterflies so as to enable the butterflies to degrade neonicotinoids,thus providing a method and system to assist in the survival andreproduction of the monarch butterfly. Herein after, while emphasis isplaced on Monarch butterflies, one of skill in the art will appreciatethe application of the present invention to other pollinators, such asother butterflies, moths, etc. Monarch butterflies frequently consumemilkweed in and near agroecosystems and consequently may be exposed topesticides like neonicotinoids. One aspect of the present invention isdirected to addressing how to stem the tide of monarch butterfly declineby modifying the gut microbiota of monarch butterflies so as to enablethe butterflies to degrade neonicotinoids, thus providing a method andsystem to assist in the survival and reproduction of the monarchbutterfly.

Numerous genes (both host and symbiont) and the proteins or contigs theyencode are identified herein as being associated withnicotinoid-pathogen synergy, as further described in US patentpublication no. 20180020678, incorporated herein by this reference. Byregulating the expression of one or more of these identified genes,proteins, and/or contigs, e.g. via the use of CRISPR-systems, thenicotinoid degradation can proceed to render the hosts (honey bees,bats, butterflies, etc.) less susceptible to nicotinoids.

Fipronil [5-Amino-3-cyano-1-(2,6-dichloro 4trifluoromethylphenyl)-4-trifluoromethyl sulfinyl pyrazole is a phenylpyrazole insecticide first synthesized by Rhône Poulenc Ag Company (nowBayer Crop Science) in 1987, introduced for use in 1993 and registeredin the U.S. in 1996. Fipronil is labeled for use in large number ofcrops and is effective against a wide range of insect pests. It has beenevaluated against over 250 insect pests and on more than 60 cropsworldwide. Fipronil, as marketed under the name Regent, has been usedagainst lepidopteran and orthopteran pests on a wide range of field andhorticultural crops and coleopteran larvae in soils. Fipronil acts ongamma amino butyric acid (GABA) receptor, the principal nervetransmitter in insects, preventing the inhibition of GABA. Biologicalstudies have shown that fipronil interferes with the passage of chlorideions through the gamma amino butyric acid disrupting central nervoussystem (CNS) activity. Fipronil is very highly toxic for crustaceans,insect and zooplankton, as well as bees, termites, rabbits, the Africantilapis, the fringe-toed lizard and certain groups of gallinaceousbirds.

Microorganisms can be helpful when it comes to the elimination ofpesticides. The increasing number of pesticides used in agriculture hasrecently acquired great importance due to the contamination of theenvironment. Microorganisms are of great importance in environmentalcleaning and insecticide degradation. The bacterial Paracoccus sp. hasbeen identified for the degradation of fipronil. Paracoccus sp. havebeen described as bacteria capable of utilizing carbon and nitrogen assource of energy from the fipronil. Cultures of Orchrobacterium sp.,Arthrobacter sp. and Burkholderia sp. isolated and identified on thebasis of 16s rDNA gene sequences, have shown in situ biodegradation ofaendosulfan, a-endosulfan and b-endosulfan, respectively. In certainembodiments of the present invention, modifications can be brought aboutin certain microbes to encourage the organisms to degrade variouspesticides at a faster rate. Such degradation by certain microbes can beachieved by introducing such microbes into the gut microbiome ofparticular insects such that such organisms can provide the benefits ofdegradation of particular insecticides in a manner that precludes theharm to the insect's health that would otherwise occur. In certainembodiments, Paracoccus sp. is employed to degrade fipronil. Whileintroduction into the gut microbiomes of particular insects ofparticular bacteria and microbes known to degrade particularinsecticides is one aspect of several embodiments of the presentinvention, other embodiments entail the incorporation of specific genesfrom organisms known to degrade particular pesticides such that thosesame pesticide degradation abilities are incorporated into the residentand native bacterial flora of particular insect gut microbiomes. Thiscan be achieved without undue experimentation by one of ordinary skillin the art as the employment of CRISPR systems, in conjunction withknowledge of particular genomes of bacteria known to degrade certainpesticides, provides the requisite knowledge and guidance to effectparticular genomic transformation and manipulation of host gutmicrobiomes such that degradation of pesticides by such bacteria is madepossible. Specifically, there are acknowledged bacteria that possess theability to degrade fipronil and the genomes of such bacteria are known.For example, the genome sequence of Paracoccus denitrificans strainISTOD1 of 4.9 Mb has been elucidated and thus, one of skill in the artcan readily employ CRISPR systems to manipulate and to incorporate thegenes from such microbe involved in the degradation of fipronil so thatthe microbes resident in the gut microbiome of insects, and inparticular of honey bees (but as described herein, also of monarchbutterflies and bats, etc.), would then possess the ability to degradepesticides, specifically fipronil, that are causing them such currentharm. See e.g., Medhi, et. al, Genome Sequence of a HeterotrophicNitrifier and Aerobic Denitrifier, Paracoccus denitrificans StrainISTOD1, Isolated from Wastewater, Genome Announc. 2018 April; 6(15):e00210-18. See also, Kumar, et. al., Biodegradation of Fipronil byParacoccus sp in Different Types of Soil, Bulletin of EnvironmentalContamination and Toxicology 88(5):781-7 (2012), both of which areincorporated herein by this reference.

In a similar manner as described herein, still other genomes of microbesmay be employed to achieve the biodegradation of fipronil by gutmicrobes in particular insects, including the honeybee, for example:Degradation of fipronil by Stenotrophomonasacidaminiphila, Uniyal, et.al, Degradation of fipronil by Stenotrophomonasacidaminiphila isolatedfrom rhizospheric soil of Zea mays, 3 Biotech. 2016 June; 6(1): 48;Mandal K, et. al, Microbial degradation of fipronil by Bacillusthuringiensis, Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 2013 July; 93:87-92, alsoincorporated herein by this reference. Huang, et. al., Genome Sequencingand Comparative Analysis of Stenotrophomonas acidaminiphila RevealEvolutionary Insights Into Sulfamethoxazole Resistance, Front Microbiol.2018; 9: 1013.

The last few years have witnessed an unprecedented increase in thenumber of novel bacterial species that hold potential to be used formetabolic engineering. Historically, only a relatively few bacteria haveattained the acceptance and widespread use in industrial bioproductionof compounds. Now, however, with the ability to perform targeted genomeengineering of bacterial chassis, such as via CRISPR systems, syntheticbiology is able to provide bacteria that can accomplish degradation ofcompounds in an unprecedented fashion.

Decades of research considerably expanded the repertoire of biologicalfunctions that microbial cells can incorporate into their physiologicaland metabolic agendas. Nowadays, designer cells can be constructed byadopting a combination of genome editing tools, chemical DNA synthesisand DNA assembly technologies—thereby fulfilling the practical goal ofsynthetic biology, that is, the construction of living cells fromindividual parts, which are purposefully assembled to yield a functionalentity. As used herein, a biological chassis can be defined as thephysical, metabolic and regulatory containment for plugging-in andplugging-out dedicated genetic circuits and regulatory devices. Theintegration of synthetic biology tools and strategies into advancedmetabolic engineering has enabled the incorporation of a number ofnon-traditional microorganisms as hosts for developing efficientmicrobial cell factories. The (already extensive) list of the microbialhosts that can be adopted for such purposes continues to expand as moretools for precise gene and genome manipulation become available.Bacterial hosts traditionally employed in the production of usefulproducts include Escherichia coli, Bacillus subtilis, Streptomyces sp.,Pseudomonas putida, and Corynebacterium glutamicum, and for each thereexists extensive background fundamental knowledge. In addition to thesebacterial hosts, the present invention also includes the use ofalternative hosts, some of which have been modified, such as via CRISPRsystems. Building on the knowledge gained from the most usedGram-negative bacterial chassis, E. coli, and the Gram-positivebacterium Bacillus subtilis, the selection of other bacterial hosts forparticular treatments of diseases will be readily determined by those ofskill in the art due to the physical and genetic makeup and uniquephysiological and metabolic properties of microorganisms that areinvolved in specific diseases or conditions.

In the field of insect microbiomes, and in particular the gut microbiomeof the honey bee, it is known that honeybees with compromised gut floraare malnourished and susceptible to infection. It is furtheracknowledged that as an herbicide, glyphosate works by blocking anenzyme called EPSP synthase in plants and microbes needed to createaromatic amino acids like phenylalanine and tryptophan. Glyphosatedoesn't kill microbes, but it keeps them from growing, and most bacteriafound in the gut of honey bees carry the gene for the enzyme. While somespecies of bacteria in the gut of honeybees are susceptible toglyphosate, others are less so because they carry a gene for aglyphosate-resistant version of EPSPS.

In certain embodiments of the present invention, the gut microbiome ofthe honeybee is manipulated so that it is able to at least partiallydegrade particular pesticides. In several embodiments, that pesticide isa neonicotinoid. In others, it is the pesticide fipronil. It is believedthat certain pesticides are more rapidly eliminated from the honeybeegut than others. For example, it is believed that fipronil isbioaccumulated by honeybees more than neonicotinoids. Thus, over aprolonged exposure, fipronil becomes more lethal to honeybees thannoenicitinoid pesticides. Mass mortalities of honey bees occurred inFrance in the 1990s coincident with the introduction of two agriculturalinsecticides, imidacloprid and fipronil. Employment of the presentinvention to inoculate the gut microbiomes of honeybees with bacteriaengineered to degrade either or both a noenicitinoid or fipronil formsthe basis of various embodiments of the present invention. Similarly, asit is believed that the effects of fipronil on bats and monarchbutterflies, as well as other insects that one may wish to protect fromthe effects of fipronil, the discussion herein with respect to honeybees should be understood to be as applicable to these other creatures.The particular gut microbiomes of any particular creature are distinct,and as such one of skill in the art will appreciate that employingnatively present microorganisms from any particular creature, such as abat, monarch butterfly, etc. should be assessed and modifications tosuch creatures microbiome (e.g. gut, skin, oral, etc.) should be thefocus to address carrying out fipronil degradation. For example, theparticular bacteria in the microbiomes of particular creatures can bemanipulated and modified so as to express fipronil degradation genes ina manner that will not significantly harm the creature, but will degradeamounts of fipronil such that the creature will not die. One of skill inthe art will appreciate the various microbes that can be modified, e.g.through CRISPR systems as described herein to accomplish desired ratesand degrees of fipronil degradation.

One will appreciate that this Summary of the Invention is not intendedto be all encompassing one of skill in the art will appreciate that theentire disclosure, as well as the incorporated references, provides abasis for the scope of the present invention as it may be claimed nowand in future applications.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE FIGURES

FIG. 1 is a depiction of a honeybee, one of the major pollinators thatis assisted by employing the method and system of the present invention.

FIG. 2 is a depiction of a Monarch butterfly, which is also a pollinatorthat is assisted by employing the method and system of the presentinvention.

FIG. 3 is a depiction of a bat, which is yet another pollinator that isassisted by employing the method and system of the present invention.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS OF THE PRESENT INVENTION

Impacts to honey bees from sublethal exposure to imidacloprid in thepresence of other stressors have been evaluated in laboratory studiesand suggest that pesticides, such as imidacloprid, in combination withpathogens may impact colony health and immune function in honey bees. Itis believed that several neonicotinoid insecticides are implicated inthe decline of honey bee populations, including the following:imidacloprid. clothianidin, thiamethoxam, and dinotefuran.

To provide necessary and sufficient written disclosure and enablement ofthe various embodiments of the present invention, the followingreferences are incorporated by reference in their entireties:20110269119 to Hutchinson, et al.; 20130064796 to Hamdi; 20140212520 toDel Vecchio, et al.; U.S. Pat. No. 9,017,718 to Tan; 20140065218 to Langet al.; U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,599,883; 8,383,201; 5,158,789; 20070218114 toSorousch; 20040136923 to Davidson; U.S. Pat. No. 8,999,372 to Davidson;20090196907 to Bunick; 20090196908 to Lee; 20030124178 to Haley;20070293587 to Haley; 20100285098 to Haley; 2006-0204591 to Burrell;U.S. Pat. No. 7,087,249 to Burrelll; U.S. Pat. No. 6,210,699 to Acharya;U.S. Pat. No. 8,865,211 to Tzannis; 20140199266 to Park; U.S. Pat. No.6,599,883 to Romeo; PCT/US2008/080362 to Dussia; 2007-0218114 to Duggan;2004-0136923 to Davidson; 20110142942 to Schobel; 20040120991 to Gardneret al.; Fuchs et al. U.S. Pat. No. 4,136,162; 20040136923 to Davidson;U.S. Pat. No. 4,163,777 to Mitra; U.S. Pat. No. 5,002,970 to Eby, III;20040096569 to Barkalow et al.; 20060035008 to Virgallito et al.;20030031737 to Rosenbloom; U.S. Pat. No. 6,919,373 to Lam et al.;20050196358 to Georglades et al.; U.S. Pat. No. 3,832,460 to Kosti;2002002057 to Battey et al.; 20040228804 to Jones, et al.; U.S. Pat. No.6,054,143 to Jones; U.S. Pat. No. 5,719,196 to Uhari; 20150150792 toKlingman; 20140333003 to Allen; 20140271867 to Myers; 20140356460 toLutin; 20150038594 to Borges; U.S. Pat. No. 6,139,861 to Friedman;20150216917 to Jones; 20150361436 to Hitchcock; 20150353901 to Liu; U.S.Pat. No. 9,131,884 to Holmes; 20150064138 to Lu; 20150093473 toBarrangou; 20120027786 to Gupta; 20150166641 to Goodman; 20150352023 toBerg; 20150064138 to Lu; 20150329875 to Gregory; 20150329555 to Liras;20140199281 to Henn; US20050100559 (proctor and Gamble); 20120142548 toCorsi et al.; U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,287,610, 6,569,474, US20020009520,US20030206995, US20070054008; and U.S. Pat. No. 8,349,313 to Smith; andU.S. Pat. No. 9,011,834 to McKenzie; 20080267933 to Ohlson et al.;20120058094 to Blasser et al.; 8716327 to Zhao; 20110217368 to Prakashet al.; 20140044734 to Sverdlov et al.; 20140349405 to Sontheimer;20140377278 to Elinav; 20140045744 to Gordon; 20130259834 toKlaenhammer; 20130157876 to Lynch; 20120276143 to O'Mahony; 20150064138to Lu; 20090205083 to Gupta et al.; 20150132263 to Liu; and 20140068797to Doudna; 20140255351 to Berstad et al.; 20150086581 to Li;PCT/US2014/036849; 20160348120 to Esvelt, et al., WO 2013026000 to Bryanand 20180020678 to Scharf et al. and Genomic signatures of honey beeassociation in an acetic acid symbiont, Smith et. al., bioRxiv preprint(Jul. 11, 2018).

It is believed that honey bees are highly dependent on their hive-matesfor acquisition of their normal gut bacteria. Each worker acquires afully expanded, typical gut community before it leaves the hive.Different colonies may maintain distinct community profiles at thestrain level and thus, biological variation among colonies results inpart from variation in gut communities. Worker bees develop acharacteristic core microbiota within hives. Some Gram-positive membersof the core microbiota can be acquired through contact with hivesurfaces. Gram-negative species, S. alvi, G. apicola, and F. perrara,appear to be acquired through contact with nurse bees or with freshfeces but not through oral trophallaxis. The eusocial honey bees andbumble bees harbor two specialized gut symbionts, Snodgrassella alvi andGilliamella apicola, and these microorganisms are specific to bees, withdifferent strains of these bacteria assorting to host species.

Workers initially lack gut bacteria and gain large characteristiccommunities in the ileum and rectum within 4 to 6 days within hives. Thecore species of Gram-negative bacteria, Snodgrassella alvi, Gilliamellaapicola, and Frischella perrara, are believed to be conveyed via nursesor hindgut material, whereas some Gram-positive species are oftentransferred through exposure to hive components. G. apicola and S. alviare mutualistic symbionts with roles in both pathogen defense andnutrition. Their highly restricted distribution and phylogeneticcorrelation with their hosts are suggestive of a lengthy coevolutionaryhistory with bees and with each other.

Workers possess a consistent set of nine bacterial species that areobserved in bees collected worldwide and that dominate their gutcommunities. Members of the core gut community include Snodgrassellaalvi (Betaproteobacteria: Neisseriales) and Gilliamella apicola andFrischella perrara (Gammaproteobacteria: Orbales); three species ofAlphaproteobacteria (“Alpha-1,” “Alpha-2.1,” and “Alpha-2.2” and threeGram-positive species (“Bifido,” corresponding to Bifidobacteriumasteroides and “Firm-4” and “Firm-5” [both Firmicutes:Lactobacillaceae]. Discrete communities are found in different gutcompartments: the crop and midgut contain very few bacteria, whereashindgut compartments (ileum and rectum) house large communities withcharacteristic compositional profiles.

Interestingly, queen gut microbiomes do not always reflect those of theworkers who tend to them and often lack many of the bacteria that areconsidered to be “core” to workers. Worker gut microbiotas arerelatively consistent across unrelated colony populations and themicrobiotas of the related queens are highly variable. Queen beemicrobiomes are dominated by enteric bacteria in early life but arecomprised primarily of α-proteobacteria at maturity. Bacterialcommunities in mature queen guts were similar in size to those of matureworkers and were characterized by dominant and specificα-proteobacterial strains known to be associated with workerhypopharyngeal glands. It is believed that queen guts are colonized bybacteria from workers' glands.

Workers emerge from the pupal stage without the core gut bacteria andare fully colonized within several days postemergence. Earlyculture-based studies noted that bees removed from frames as pupae couldremain free of gut bacteria through adulthood. During the pupal stage,the shedding of the integument and gut intima bars the carriage of gutmicrobes from the larval stage to the adult stage. Newly emerged A.mellifera workers (NEWs) are fed via oral trophallaxis by attendantnurse workers, consume bee bread, the fermented pollen food sourcestored within hives, and have many encounters with adult bees within thehive. Interactions with older bees as well as contact with the comb andbee bread are all potential inoculation routes for young workers.

Honey bees (Apis spp.) and bumble bees (Bombus spp) possess adistinctive gut microbiota dominated by three groups, S. alvi, G.apicola, and Lactobacillus spp., and these form the majority of the gutcommunity. From an evolutionary perspective, specialized gut bacteriarepresent a unique but ubiquitous form of symbiosis that has thus farescaped close scientific scrutiny. For the eusocial corbiculate bees,there appear to be at least 4 lineages of gut bacteria exhibiting hostspecificity: S. alvi, G. apicola, Lactobacillus spp, and Bifidobacteriumspp. Gilliamella apicola and Snodgrassella alvi are dominant members ofthe honey bee (Apis spp.) and bumble bee (Bombus spp.) gut microbiota.

Both G. apicola and S. alvi have relatively small genomes with reducedfunctional capabilities, which is consistent with their beingspecialized gut symbionts. S. alvi has lost the ability to usecarbohydrates for carbon or energy: The glycolysis(Embden-Meyerhof-Parnas), pentose phosphate, and Entner-Doudoroffpathways needed to convert sugars to pyruvate are all missing keyenzymes, and thus are predicted to be nonfunctional. This is surprising,considering that the bee diet consists mainly of carbohydrates. Instead,S. alvi possesses transporters for uptake of carboxylates, such ascitrate, malate, α-ketoglutarate, and lactate. These can be useddirectly in the tricarboxylic acid cycle (TCA) cycle or, in the case oflactate, can be converted to pyruvate via lactate dehydrogenase. S. alviis an obligate aerobe possessing NADH dehydrogenase and cytochrome boand bd oxidases, but it lacks the TCA cycle enzyme succinyl-CoAsynthetase, which catalyzes the interconversion of succinyl-CoA andsuccinate.

In particular embodiments, the present invention is directed to a systemand method used for the biological control of the welfare of bees, andfor prophylaxis and treatment of pathological disorders of bees causedby insecticides, and especially neonicotinoids. In certain embodiments,bacteria are modified, preferably via the CRISPR-Cas system, and suchbacteria are then provided to honey bees in a fashion such that they canreside in the gut of the honey bee, such bacteria selected from thegroup consisting of: S. alvi, G. apicola, Lactobacillus spp, andBifidobacterium spp. Gilliamella apicola and Snodgrassella alvi. TheCRISPR-Cas system is employed to enable such modified species to degradeneonicotinoids. CRISPR elements, another widespread system of phagedefense, are abundant in G. apicola genomes and may act synergisticallywith restriction modification systems.

In other embodiments, still other bacteria are introduced into a beehive environment in a manner such that the bacteria are incorporatedinto the gut microbiota of at least worker bees or nurse bees, such thatthe colony can then acquire the ability to assimilate or degradeneonicotinoids that they are exposed to. In this regard, the followingbacteria may be employed: Lactobacillus paracasei ssp., Bifidobacteriumbifidum, Lactobacillus acidophilus, Lactococcus lactis, Bifidobacteriumanimalis, Lactobacillus thermophilus, and Bacillus clausii;Lactobacillus plantarum YML001, Lactobacillus plantarum YML004 andLeuconostoc citreum KM20; ochrobactrum intermedium SCUEC4 strain,wherein the preservation number is CCTCC NO:M2014403; ochrobactrumintermedium strain LMG3306. Particularly preferred microbes to employ,whether for extraction of their neonicotinoid genes for transplantationinto the gut microbes of honey bees, or for the microbes inclusion as amicrobe in the gut of honey bees, is a member of the genus ochrobactrum,in the alpha-2 subgroup of the domain Proteobacteria.

Other embodiments of the present invention are directed to modificationof the bat gut microbiome so as to enhance the health and survival ofbats, e.g. by providing bats with bacteria that can degradeneonicotinoids. In doing so, the adverse effects of WNS can beameliorated. There are over 190 species within the Phyllostomidae, theNew World leaf-nosed bat family. These bats are found from southern USAand northern Mexico to Argentina and are the most ecologically diversefamily within the order Chiroptera. They show an evolutionarydiversification of dietary strategies from insectivory to diets thatinclude blood, meat from small vertebrates, nectar, fruit and complexomnivorous mixtures. Microbiomes of these bat species include: Gamma-,Alpha-, and Delta-proteobacteria, Tenericutes, Firmicutes,Bacteroidetes, Planctomycetes, Cyanobacteria; Proteobacteria;Gammaproteobacteria; Enterobacteriales; Pasteurella;Deltaproteobacteria; Desulfurellales, Syntrophobacterales, Myxococcales;Rhodospirillales, Rhodobacterales, Rhizobiales, Rickettsiales;Firmicutes; Clostridia; Bacilli; and Cyanobacteria. One strikingdifference in microbiome composition between plant-(fruit and nectar)vs. animal-eating bats (insectivores and sanguivores) is the greatabundance of Crenarchaeota in the later. Overall, archaea are moreabundant in the insect and blood eating bats.

The beneficial bacteria on the skin of bats provide vital functions,including processing of skin proteins, freeing fatty acids to reduceinvasion of transient microorganisms, and inhibition of pathogenicmicroorganisms. While some probiotics have been contemplated in thebiological control of disease in both aquaculture and agriculture, theyhave yet to be widely implemented in controlling wildlife disease.

In preferred embodiments of the present invention, bacteria thatnaturally occur in the bat microbiota are used and even more preferably,certain strains that have been modified to enhance their effectivenessand survival on a bat's skin or gut environment, and/or modified to haveparticular antibiotic characteristics, are employed. Those that are ableto colonize the bat's skin and/or gut are preferred. Augmentation priorto P. destructans exposure is preferably used, but in other embodiments,bacterial augmentation even after exposure to P. destructans can be usedto displace such pathogen.

One objective is to employ a strain of bacteria that can effectivelypersist on bat skin at high enough concentrations to limit P.destructans growth below levels that cause lethal disease.

In certain embodiments, the group of bacteria used comprise Pseudomonasfluorescens, which is known to produce a suite of antifungal compoundsthat can inhibit many plant fungal pathogens as well as the amphibianfungal pathogens, Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis. Some strains in the P.fluorescens group are also capable of producing mycolysing enzymes thatcan colonize the mycelia and conidia of fungi rendering them no longerviable. Thus, this bacteria, whether wild type or modified as describedherein, is employed in various methods and systems as set forth hereinas a biological control agent for reducing infection intensity andincreasing survival of bats exposed to P. destructans.

Isolation of such antifungal bacteria can be obtained from the skin ofbat species that appear to be better at surviving WNS, and thus,isolates from the skin of E. fuscus, which has lower mortality from WNScompared to other species, is preferably employed. In other embodiments,strains of P. fluorescens (PF3 and PF4) are used.

Administration of effective bacteria that can beneficially assist batsin combating the ill effects of neonicotinoids can be achieved in manyways, including but not limited to spraying colonies of bats withbacterial solutions; providing such bacterial solutions in places wherebats frequent in a manner that they will be exposed to the same;purposeful capture and inoculation of members of a colony such that theywill be able to then spread the bacteria to other bats in a colony,effectively inoculating the entire colony.

Certain aspects of the present invention are directed to employing genesfrom the microbe ochrobactrum intermedium such that bats are able toassimilate and degrade neonicotinoids. Other embodiments employinoculation of bats with a culture of neonicotinoid degrading bacteria,such as one or more of ochrobactrum intermedium, Agrobacteriumtumefaciens S33, Apergillus oryzae, Pseudomonas putida S16; Arthrobacternicotinovarans, microsporum gypseum, pellicularia filamentosa JTS-208,pseudomonas sp. 41; Microsporum gypseum; Pseudomonas ZUTSKD; aspergillusoryzae 112822; and ochrobactrum intermedium DN2. Preferably wherein thebacteria collection or culture comprises ochrobactrum intermedium,collection number CGMCC NO. 8839 is used. The invention further providesapplications of the ochrobactrum intermedium to foster degradation ofneonicotinoid insecticides by bats while the microbe exists in the gutor skin of the bats, the gut of honey bees and in butterflies.

CRISPR systems may be employed to insert desired genes into the abovementioned (as well as others) microbes that inhabit the bat gut or skinso as to degrade particular insecticides, including neonicotinoids. Thebat microbiome enhances host functions, contributing to host health andfitness. One aspect of the present invention is directed to improvingbat fitness by modifying the bat microbiome, thus engineering evolvedmicrobiomes with specific effects on the host bat fitness. Thus, byemploying host-mediated microbiome selection, one is able to select andmodify microbial communities indirectly through the host, thusinfluencing the bat microbiome and positively affecting bat fitness. Themethods that may be used to impose artificial selection on the batmicrobiome include various techniques known to those of skill in theart, including CRISPR-Cas and Cpl1 systems. Thus, while particularcultures of particular microbes can be purposefully included into batpopulations so as to inhabit their gut or skin microbiome, and by doingso, providing the bats with the ability to degrade neonicotinoids, otherembodiments are directed to engineering a modification of the bat gut orskin microbes that do not already possess such neonicotinoid degradationgenes.

In certain embodiments, xenobiotic detoxification is employed. Inparticular embodiments, the conversion of lipid-soluble substances towater-soluble, excretable metabolites is achieved. In a primarydetoxification step, a toxin structure is enzymatically altered andrendered unable to interact with lipophilic target sites. Suchfunctionalization is affected primarily by cytochrome P450monooxygenases (P450) and carboxylesterases (CCE), although otherenzymes, including flavin-dependent monooxygenases and cyclooxygenasesmay also be employed. Further reactions typically involve conjugation ofproducts of the above referenced step to achieve detoxification forsolubilization and transport. Glutathione-S-transferases (GST) are theprincipal enzymes used, although other enzymes may includeglycosyltransferases, phosphotransferases, sulfotransferases, aminotransferases, and glycosidases. Nucleophilic compounds can berendered hydrophilic by UDP-glycosyltransferases. The final stage ofdetoxification involves transport of conjugates out of cells forexcretion. Among the proteins involved in this process are multidrugresistance proteins and other ATP-binding cassette transporters.

In particular embodiments, the present invention is directed to a systemand method used for the biological control of the welfare of bats, andfor prophylaxis and treatment of pathological disorders of bats causedby insecticides, and especially neonicotinoids. In certain embodiments,bacteria are modified, preferably via the CRISPR-Cas system, and suchbacteria are then provided to bats in a fashion such that they canreside in the gut or skin of the bats, such bacteria selected from thegroup consisting of: Gamma-, Alpha-, and Delta-proteobacteria,Tenericutes, Firmicutes, Bacteroidetes, Planctomycetes, Cyanobacteria;Proteobacteria; Gam maproteobacteria; Enterobacteriales; Pasteurella;Deltaproteobacteria; Desulfurellales, Syntrophobacterales, Myxococcales;Rhodospirillales, Rhodobacterales, Rhizobiales, Rickettsiales; Firmicutes; Clostridia; Bacilli; and Cyanobacteria.

In other embodiments, still other bacteria are introduced into a batcolony environment in a manner such that the bacteria are incorporatedinto the gut and/or skin microbiota of at least some bats, which canthen “infect” other bats with such bacteria, and in so doing, the colonyof bats can then acquire the ability to assimilate or degradeneonicotinoids that it is exposed to. In this regard, the followingbacteria may be employed: Lactobacillus paracasei ssp., Bifidobacteriumbifidum, Lactobacillus acidophilus, Lactococcus lactis, Bifidobacteriumanimalis, Lactobacillus thermophilus, and Bacillus clausii;Lactobacillus plantarum YML001, Lactobacillus plantarum YML004 andLeuconostoc citreum KM20; ochrobactrum intermedium SCUEC4 strain,wherein the preservation number is CCTCC NO:M2014403; ochrobactrumintermedium strain LMG3306. Particularly preferred microbes to employ,whether for extraction of their neonicotinoid genes for transplantationinto the gut and/or skin microbes of bats, or for the microbes inclusionas a microbe in the gut or skin of bats, is a member of the genusochrobactrum, in the alpha-2 subgroup of the domain Proteobacteria.

While not bound by theory, it is believed that still other microbes maybe employed in various embodiments of the present invention to addressthe objective of degrading neonicotinoid-like compounds, such bacteriashowing an ability to degrade nicotine. The CRISPR-Cas system isemployed to enable such modified species to degrade neonicotinoids.Thus, such system can be used to provide gut or skin bacteria that maygrow on the bat skin or gut and can include genes that achieve desireddegradation of neonicotinoids via the use of or presence of such genesin nicotine degrading organisms, such as Agrobacterium tumefaciens S33,Apergillus oryzae, Pseudomonas putida S16; Arthrobacter nicotinovarans,microsporum gypseum, pellicularia filamentosa JTS-208, pseudomonas sp.41; Microsporum gypseum; Pseudomonas ZUTSKD; aspergillus oryzae 112822;and ochrobactrum intermedium DN2.

Microbial symbionts are important for host organisms, and insects relyon the communities of microorganisms in their guts for severalfunctions. Hosts have evolved a range of mechanisms to protectthemselves against parasites that are a large threat to their fitness.These defenses can extend beyond intrinsic host immunity and incorporateaspects of the environment in which host and parasite interact. Monarchbutterfly (Danaus plexippus) larvae actively consume milkweeds(Asclepias spp.) that contain secondary chemical compounds, namedcardenolides, which reduce parasite infection and virulence.

Commensalibacter is a genus of acetic acid bacteria and 16S rRNA genesequences related to the Commensalibacter genus have been recovered fromthe guts of Drosophila species, honey bees, and bumble bees, as well asfrom Heliconius erato butterflies. The type strain Commensalibacterintestini A911 was isolated from Drosophila intestines, and the genomesequence of a Commensalibacter symbiont isolated from a monarchbutterfly has been reported. Commensalibacter papalotli strain MX01, wasisolated from the intestines of an overwintering monarch butterfly. The2,332,652-bp AT-biased genome of C. papalotli MX01 is the smallestgenome for a member of the Acetobacteraceae.

In certain embodiments, Commensalibacter bacteria are modified to renderthem able to degrade neonicotinoid insecticides and such bacteria arethen purposefully provided to the gut biome of monarch butterflies toenable the butterflies to degrade such pesticides, and thus survive andremain viable for reproduction. In a particular embodiment, the genesresponsible for the ability to degrade neonicotinoids are derived fromthe ochrobactrum intermedium SCUEC4 strain, wherein the preservationnumber is CCTCC NO:M2014403; and/or ochrobactrum intermedium strainLMG3306.

CRISPR systems may be employed to insert desired genes into variousbacteria that can survive in the gut of the monarch butterfly such thatthese microbes can degrade particular insecticides, includingneonicotinoids.

One aspect of the present invention is directed to improving monarchbutterfly fitness by modifying the monarch butterfly microbiome, eitherby incorporation of select species of bacteria into existing gutmicrobiomes of the monarch butterfly, or by incorporation of geneticelements into existing bacteria within a monarch butterfly's gut suchthat the modified microbe is able to degrade neonicotinoids. Theseengineered microbiomes are purposefully designed to have with specificbeneficial effects on the host monarch butterfly fitness. Thus, byemploying host-mediated microbiome selection, one is able to select andmodify microbial communities indirectly through the host, thusinfluencing the monarch butterfly microbiome and positively affectingmonarch butterfly fitness. The methods that may be used to imposeartificial selection on the monarch butterfly microbiome include varioustechniques known to those of skill in the art, including CRISPR-Cas andCpl1 systems. Thus, particular cultures of particular microbes can bepurposefully included into monarch butterfly populations so as toinhabit their gut microbiome, and by doing so, provide the monarchbutterflies with the ability to degrade neonicotinoids. Otherembodiments are directed to engineering a modification of the monarchbutterfly gut microbes that do not already possess such neonicotinoiddegradation genes.

Detoxification gene inventory reduction may reflect an evolutionaryhistory of consuming relatively chemically benign nectar and pollen.Thus, certain embodiments are directed to the development of predictablemicrobiome-based biocontrol strategies by providing the ability ofmonarch butterflies to degrade or otherwise assimilate insecticides orother chemical agents, including neonicotinoids. Such a novel biocontrolstrategy can not only be used to suppress pathogens, but can also beeffectively used to establish microbiomes in a desirable beneficialcomposition for particular purposes.

In certain embodiments, xenobiotic detoxification is employed to addressthe problems associated with monarch butterfly health. In particularembodiments, the conversion of lipid-soluble substances towater-soluble, excretable metabolites is achieved. In a primarydetoxification step, a toxin structure is enzymatically altered andrendered unable to interact with lipophilic target sites. Suchfunctionalization is affected primarily by cytochrome P450monooxygenases (P450) and carboxylesterases (CCE), although otherenzymes, including flavin-dependent monooxygenases and cyclooxygenasesmay also be employed. Further reactions typically involve conjugation ofproducts of the above referenced step to achieve detoxification forsolubilization and transport. Glutathione-S-transferases (GST) are theprincipal enzymes used, although other enzymes in insects may includeglycosyltransferases, phosphotransferases, sulfotransferases, aminotransferases, and glycosidases. Nucleophilic compounds can berendered hydrophilic by UDP-glycosyltransferases. The final stage ofdetoxification involves transport of conjugates out of cells forexcretion. Among the proteins involved in this process are multidrugresistance proteins and other ATP-binding cassette transporters.

Any one or more of appropriate bacteria can be modified to expressparticular genes that have been shown (for example by its inclusion inthe bacteria ochrobactrum intermedium) to degrade neonicotinoids in amanner that preserves monarch butterfly health. One of skill in the artcan address compatibility issues with respect to the use of suchbacteria and can make modifications thereto to render it tolerable andviable in the gut microbiome of the monarch butterfly. Geneticmodification of existing microbes in the monarch butterfly gut can alsobe performed to render such native bacteria able to produce agentseffective in degrading neonicotinoids.

Impacts to monarch butterflies from sublethal exposure toneonicotinoids, such as imidacloprid, especially in the presence ofother stressors, is believed to result in severe and significantdysfunctions within and have an adverse impact on monarch colony healthand to the immune function in individual monarch butterflies. It isbelieved that several neonicotinoid insecticides are implicated in thedecline of monarch butterfly populations, including the following:imidacloprid. clothianidin, thiamethoxam, and dinotefuran.

In particular embodiments, the present invention is directed to a systemand method used for the biological control of the welfare of monarchbutterflies, and for prophylaxis and treatment of pathological disordersof monarch butterflies caused by insecticides, and especiallyneonicotinoids. In certain embodiments, bacteria are modified,preferably via the CRISPR-Cas system, and such bacteria are thenprovided to monarch butterflies in a fashion such that they can residein the gut of the monarch butterfly, such bacteria selected from thegroup consisting of one or more bacteria in six bacterial families: theAcetobacteraceae (Alpha proteobacteria), Moraxellaceae andEnterobacteriaceae (Gamma proteobacteria), Enterococcaceae andStreptococcaceae (Firmicutes), and an unclassified family in theBacteroidetes phylum. In particular embodiments, the bacteria employedin the present invention include one or more of the following:Commensalibacter, and in particular Commensalibacter intestini A911 andCommensalibacter papalotli strain MX01; Lactobacillus paracasei ssp.,Bifidobacterium bifidum, Lactobacillus acidophilus, Lactococcus lactis,Bifidobacterium animalis, Lactobacillus thermophilus, and Bacillusclausii; Lactobacillus plantarum YML001, Lactobacillus plantarum YML004and Leuconostoc citreum KM20; ochrobactrum intermedium SCUEC4 strain,wherein the preservation number is CCTCC NO:M2014403; ochrobactrumintermedium strain LMG3306. Particularly preferred microbes to employ,whether for extraction of their neonicotinoid genes for transplantationinto the gut microbes of monarch butterflies, or for the microbesinclusion as a microbe in the gut of monarch butterflies, is a member ofthe genus ochrobactrum, in the alpha-2 subgroup of the domainProteobacteria.

Modifying the gut microbiota of monarch butterflies to provide them withthe ability to consume chemically defended plants can thus be achievedby varying the monarch butterflies associated microbial communities.Different microbes may be differentially able to detoxify compoundstoxic to the monarch or may be differentially resistant to the potentialantimicrobial effects of some compounds.

In certain embodiments, the administration of effective bacteria thatcan beneficially assist monarch butterflies in combating the ill effectsof neonicotinoids can be achieved in many ways, including but notlimited to spraying colonies of butterflies or caterpillars that willemerge as butterflies with bacterial solutions; providing such bacterialsolutions in places where monarch butterflies frequent in a manner thatthey will be exposed to the same, such as by having bacteria provide insweetened solutions that monarch butterflies are drawn to; purposefulcapture and inoculation of members of a colony such that they will beable to then spread the bacteria to other bats in a colony, effectivelyinoculating an entire colony of monarch butterflies.

As one of skill in the art of living will appreciate, the reason topreserve nature is not merely within the realm of science, as beauty andliterature are rooted in those creatures who share this earth with us.The philosophers of the past recognized this fact. Nietzsche once said:“And to me also, who appreciate life, the butterflies, and soap-bubbles,and whatever is like them amongst us, seem most to enjoy happiness.” Ourtreasure lies in the beehive of our knowledge. We are perpetually on theway thither, being by nature winged insects and honey gatherers of themind.” Aristotle chimed in: “As the eyes of bats are to the blaze ofday, so is the reason in our soul to the things which are by nature mostevident of all.” Karl von Frisch said “Nature has unlimited time inwhich to travel along tortuous paths to an unknown destination. The mindof man is too feeble to discern whence or whither the path runs and hasto be content if it can discern only portions of the track, howeversmall.” So as Nabokov suggested, “do what only a true artist can do . .. pounce upon the forgotten butterfly of revelation.” “Literature andbutterflies are the two sweetest passions known to man.”

While specific embodiments and applications of the present inventionhave been described, it is to be understood that the invention is notlimited to the precise configuration and components disclosed herein.Various modifications, changes, and variations which will be apparent tothose skilled in the art may be made in the arrangement, operation, anddetails of the methods and systems of the present invention disclosedherein without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention.Those skilled in the art will appreciate that the conception, upon whichthis disclosure is based, may readily be utilized as a basis fordesigning of other methods and systems for carrying out the severalpurposes of the present invention to instruct and encourage theprevention and treatment of various human diseases. It is important,therefore, that the claims be regarded as including any such equivalentconstruction insofar as they do not depart from the spirit and scope ofthe present invention.

What is claimed is:
 1. A method for providing a honey bee with theability to assimilate pesticides, comprising, inoculating a honey beewith a culture of one of a neonicotinoid degrading bacteria and afipronil degrading bacteria, wherein the neonicotinoid degradingbacteria comprises Ochrobactrum intermedium, and the fipronil degradingbacteria comprises at least one of Bacillus thuringiensis, Paracoccusdenitrificans, and Stenotrophomonas acidaminiphila.
 2. The method as setforth in claim 1, wherein the neonicotinoid degraded by theneonicotinoid bacteria is selected from the group consisting ofacetamiprid, clothianidin, dinotefuran, nitenpyram, thiacloprid, andthiamethoxam.
 3. The method as set forth in claim 1, wherein the culturecomprises one of a neonicotinoid degrading bacteria and a fipronildegrading bacteria, that has been modified using a clustered regularlyinterspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR) CRISPR associated protein(Cas) system or using a clustered regularly interspaced shortpalindromic repeats (CRISPR) from prevotella and francisella 1 (Cpf1)nuclease.
 4. The method as set forth in claim 1, wherein the culturecomprises a fipronil degrading bacteria comprises one of Paracoccusdenitrificans and Stenotrophomonas acidaminiphila.
 5. The method as setforth in claim 1, wherein the culture comprises a fipronil degradingbacteria that comprises Stenotrophomonas acidaminiphila.
 6. The methodas set forth in claim 1, wherein the culture comprises a fipronildegrading bacteria that comprises Bacillus thuringiensis.
 7. The methodas set forth in claim 1, wherein the neonicotinoid pesticide isthiacloprid.
 8. The method as set forth in claim 1, wherein theneonicotinoid pesticide is thiamethoxam.
 9. A method for providing ahoney bee with the ability to assimilate pesticides, comprising,inoculating a honey bee with a culture of pesticide degrading bacteria,wherein the pesticide is selected from the group consisting of fipronil,and a neonicotinoid pesticide, said neonicotinoid selected from thegroup consisting of acetamiprid, clothianidin, dinotefuran, nitenpyram,thiacloprid, and thiamethoxam, said culture including one ofOchrobactrum intermedium and Paracoccus denitrificans.
 10. The method asset forth in claim 9, wherein the culture has been modified using aclustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR)CRISPR associated protein (Cas) system to facilitate degradation of atleast one pesticide, said pesticide selected from the group consistingof fipronil and a neonicotinoid pesticide.
 11. The method as set forthin claim 9, wherein the culture further comprises one ofStenotrophomonas acidaminiphila, Bacillus thuringiensis, and Paracoccusdenitrificans.
 12. The method as set forth in claim 9, wherein theculture further comprises one of Stenotrophomonas acidaminiphila andBacillus thuringiensis.
 13. The method as set forth in claim 9, whereinthe neonicotinoid pesticide is nitenpyram.
 14. The method as set forthin claim 9, wherein the neonicotinoid pesticide is thiacloprid.
 15. Themethod as set forth in claim 9, wherein the neonicotinoid pesticide isthiamethoxam.
 16. A method for providing a honey bee with the ability toassimilate pesticides, comprising, inoculating the gut of a honey beewith a culture of microbes that normally inhabit the honey bee gut, saidmicrobes possessing the ability to degrade pesticides, said microbescomprising one of neonicotinoid degrading bacteria that have genes fromOchrobactrum intermedium, and fipronil degrading bacteria that havegenes from Paracoccus denitrificans, wherein the microbes have beenmodified using a clustered regularly interspaced short palindromicrepeats (CRISPR) from prevotella and francisella 1 (Cpf1) nuclease. 17.The method as set forth in claim 9, wherein the culture furthercomprises one of Stenotrophomonas acidaminiphila and Bacillusthuringiensis.
 18. The method as set forth in claim 9, wherein theneonicotinoid pesticide is dinotefuran.
 19. The method as set forth inclaim 9, wherein the neonicotinoid pesticide is nitenpyram.
 20. Themethod as set forth in claim 9, wherein the neonicotinoid pesticide isthiacloprid.